This talks about carbon emissions but not of climate change. As I've said - Mediaeval England grew grapes; Bronze-Age farmers grew crops on the hills of Sheffield. These things cannot be done today as the climate has changed since then (before human industrialisation). The climate of the Earth naturally changes so blaming it on humans doesn't make sense.

There's more, of course. At this point there's really no way to pick out one side that's definitely correct, so I side with what seems the most logical one. Most people take for granted that humans are the main cause of climate change, so they won't look at opposing evidence. I oppose that view when I can.

Interesting, but not very convincing. Especially when the first source for the first Con argument comes from Marc Morano, who has no background in climate science and whose organisation Climate Depot is funded by the right-wing Republican-backed Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. The first Con itself isn't very convincing when you understand how academic publications work. I'm doing a PhD in Statistics and although my research relies on fundamental theorems in statistical theory, I don't state them explicitly because it's not a good use of space when I can safely assume that my audience knows what I'm talking about. Just because only a small percentage of published articles in climate science explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of global warming doesn't mean that those other papers aren't motivated by that statement being true. It's why surveys of actual climate scientists are more reliable, and it's those surveys which consistently report 95+% of climate scientists believing in anthropogenic climate change. I could probably go through the other Cons and dispute them if I had more formal training in climate science, but I don't.

I'd recommend you check out the documentary Merchants of Doubt, though. It's a really good deconstruction of climate denial.

Perhaps I will at some point, though I'm not trusting of much on the side of human-made climate change. Mainly because the scientists researching this stuff and coming to the conclusions have their jobs secured by such conclusions. Governments want scientists to say that people are making a massive impact on climate change to please the G20 summit and to allow big industry to thrive selling clean energy and clean energy accessories. Money makes the world go round, and there will always be money to be made investing in clean energy as long as the fear is hyped up. Call me a conspiracy nut if you wish, but humans are not trustworthy creatures in my opinion and are too easily bought.

Also, even if people are making an impact, the global climate changes on its own anyway, so holding industry back isn't necessary. Stopping pollution - sure - but to stop climate change, I'm dubious.

Find more, then. I basically found one and skim-read it. If I want to find a good one that'd take more time, and it seems as though you're set in stone in your beliefs anyway. If I come across a good one I'll send it.

While what you said is true, the problem is that people who hold your position are almost exclusively funded by petroleum companies or right-wing interest groups. Climate scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change are the vast majority in every other organisation, partisan or not, publicly funded or not. Your position is distinctly partisan. Mine isn't. They're not equivalent.

But as I've stated, it's only natural that people who supply petroleum would endorse the scientists who agree with them. It's a mistake to look at which groups of people support an argument rather at looking at the argument itself. There's a lot of evidence supporting my position - the climate of the Earth changes a lot over thousands of years, and has been doing so far before human industrialisation. It seems illogical to blame human-caused carbon emissions for what has been happening for so many thousands of years.

This talks about carbon emissions but not of climate change. As I've said - Mediaeval England grew grapes; Bronze-Age farmers grew crops on the hills of Sheffield. These things cannot be done today as the climate has changed since then (before human industrialisation). The climate of the Earth naturally changes so blaming it on humans doesn't make sense.

There's more, of course. At this point there's really no way to pick out one side that's definitely correct, so I side with what seems the most logical one. Most people take for granted that humans are the main cause of climate change, so they won't look at opposing evidence. I oppose that view when I can.

Interesting, but not very convincing. Especially when the first source for the first Con argument comes from Marc Morano, who has no background in climate science and whose organisation Climate Depot is funded by the right-wing Republican-backed Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. The first Con itself isn't very convincing when you understand how academic publications work. I'm doing a PhD in Statistics and although my research relies on fundamental theorems in statistical theory, I don't state them explicitly because it's not a good use of space when I can safely assume that my audience knows what I'm talking about. Just because only a small percentage of published articles in climate science explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of global warming doesn't mean that those other papers aren't motivated by that statement being true. It's why surveys of actual climate scientists are more reliable, and it's those surveys which consistently report 95+% of climate scientists believing in anthropogenic climate change. I could probably go through the other Cons and dispute them if I had more formal training in climate science, but I don't.

I'd recommend you check out the documentary Merchants of Doubt, though. It's a really good deconstruction of climate denial.

Perhaps I will at some point, though I'm not trusting of much on the side of human-made climate change. Mainly because the scientists researching this stuff and coming to the conclusions have their jobs secured by such conclusions. Governments want scientists to say that people are making a massive impact on climate change to please the G20 summit and to allow big industry to thrive selling clean energy and clean energy accessories. Money makes the world go round, and there will always be money to be made investing in clean energy as long as the fear is hyped up. Call me a conspiracy nut if you wish, but humans are not trustworthy creatures in my opinion and are too easily bought.

Also, even if people are making an impact, the global climate changes on its own anyway, so holding industry back isn't necessary. Stopping pollution - sure - but to stop climate change, I'm dubious.

Find more, then. I basically found one and skim-read it. If I want to find a good one that'd take more time, and it seems as though you're set in stone in your beliefs anyway. If I come across a good one I'll send it.

Climate scientists who hold the view that humans are not contributing to global warming are a fringe minority and usually funded by the petroleum industry (see Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012). This has been demonstrated time and time again with surveys of climate scientists.

Appealing to the majority doesn't make a good argument in itself. And why wouldn't the petroleum industry fund these scientists? If they stand on the side that says humans don't affect climate change, and the petroleum industry agreed, it seems to be a perfect match. There are many scientists who say humans do affect climate change that are funded by clean energy companies and governments interested in making money via said energy.

- Just because a minority believes in something does not mean they are wrong.
- Funding from certain companies doesn't mean the scientists have been bribed.

While what you said is true, the problem is that people who hold your position are almost exclusively funded by petroleum companies or right-wing interest groups. Climate scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change are the vast majority in every other organisation, partisan or not, publicly funded or not. Your position is distinctly partisan. Mine isn't. They're not equivalent.

But as I've stated, it's only natural that people who supply petroleum would endorse the scientists who agree with them. It's a mistake to look at which groups of people support an argument rather at looking at the argument itself. There's a lot of evidence supporting my position - the climate of the Earth changes a lot over thousands of years, and has been doing so far before human industrialisation. It seems illogical to blame human-caused carbon emissions for what has been happening for so many thousands of years.

This talks about carbon emissions but not of climate change. As I've said - Mediaeval England grew grapes; Bronze-Age farmers grew crops on the hills of Sheffield. These things cannot be done today as the climate has changed since then (before human industrialisation). The climate of the Earth naturally changes so blaming it on humans doesn't make sense.

There's more, of course. At this point there's really no way to pick out one side that's definitely correct, so I side with what seems the most logical one. Most people take for granted that humans are the main cause of climate change, so they won't look at opposing evidence. I oppose that view when I can.

Interesting, but not very convincing. Especially when the first source for the first Con argument comes from Marc Morano, who has no background in climate science and whose organisation Climate Depot is funded by the right-wing Republican-backed Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. The first Con itself isn't very convincing when you understand how academic publications work. I'm doing a PhD in Statistics and although my research relies on fundamental theorems in statistical theory, I don't state them explicitly because it's not a good use of space when I can safely assume that my audience knows what I'm talking about. Just because only a small percentage of published articles in climate science explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of global warming doesn't mean that those other papers aren't motivated by that statement being true. It's why surveys of actual climate scientists are more reliable, and it's those surveys which consistently report 95+% of climate scientists believing in anthropogenic climate change. I could probably go through the other Cons and dispute them if I had more formal training in climate science, but I don't.

I'd recommend you check out the documentary Merchants of Doubt, though. It's a really good deconstruction of climate denial.

Perhaps I will at some point, though I'm not trusting of much on the side of human-made climate change. Mainly because the scientists researching this stuff and coming to the conclusions have their jobs secured by such conclusions. Governments want scientists to say that people are making a massive impact on climate change to please the G20 summit and to allow big industry to thrive selling clean energy and clean energy accessories. Money makes the world go round, and there will always be money to be made investing in clean energy as long as the fear is hyped up. Call me a conspiracy nut if you wish, but humans are not trustworthy creatures in my opinion and are too easily bought.

Also, even if people are making an impact, the global climate changes on its own anyway, so holding industry back isn't necessary. Stopping pollution - sure - but to stop climate change, I'm dubious.

Find more, then. I basically found one and skim-read it. If I want to find a good one that'd take more time, and it seems as though you're set in stone in your beliefs anyway. If I come across a good one I'll send it.

"climate scientists" as with many scientists will openly agree with popular opinion otherwise they get no funding and rep.

just because a scientist says something doesn't mean you can't question it. They aren't supposed to be followed blindly. Use your own observations with everything. The "facts" keep changing and the media machine keeps lying.

There are climate scientists who agree and disagree with the position I hold. I choose what seems to be the most logical conclusion. The history behind Northern European agriculture is excellent evidence towards the view that climate change isn't affected on a large enough scale by humans for us to worry about it. Blindly following what one group of scientists says isn't the best way to come to a conclusion to this issue - evidence from many sources is much better.

Also, since some scientists believe that climate change isn't being affected by human activity (to a noteable scale, at least), how is it that you know better than actual scientists about this stuff? Blindly appealing to authority is stupid.

Climate scientists who hold the view that humans are not contributing to global warming are a fringe minority and usually funded by the petroleum industry (see Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012). This has been demonstrated time and time again with surveys of climate scientists.

Appealing to the majority doesn't make a good argument in itself. And why wouldn't the petroleum industry fund these scientists? If they stand on the side that says humans don't affect climate change, and the petroleum industry agreed, it seems to be a perfect match. There are many scientists who say humans do affect climate change that are funded by clean energy companies and governments interested in making money via said energy.

- Just because a minority believes in something does not mean they are wrong.
- Funding from certain companies doesn't mean the scientists have been bribed.

While what you said is true, the problem is that people who hold your position are almost exclusively funded by petroleum companies or right-wing interest groups. Climate scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change are the vast majority in every other organisation, partisan or not, publicly funded or not. Your position is distinctly partisan. Mine isn't. They're not equivalent.

But as I've stated, it's only natural that people who supply petroleum would endorse the scientists who agree with them. It's a mistake to look at which groups of people support an argument rather at looking at the argument itself. There's a lot of evidence supporting my position - the climate of the Earth changes a lot over thousands of years, and has been doing so far before human industrialisation. It seems illogical to blame human-caused carbon emissions for what has been happening for so many thousands of years.

This talks about carbon emissions but not of climate change. As I've said - Mediaeval England grew grapes; Bronze-Age farmers grew crops on the hills of Sheffield. These things cannot be done today as the climate has changed since then (before human industrialisation). The climate of the Earth naturally changes so blaming it on humans doesn't make sense.

There's more, of course. At this point there's really no way to pick out one side that's definitely correct, so I side with what seems the most logical one. Most people take for granted that humans are the main cause of climate change, so they won't look at opposing evidence. I oppose that view when I can.

Interesting, but not very convincing. Especially when the first source for the first Con argument comes from Marc Morano, who has no background in climate science and whose organisation Climate Depot is funded by the right-wing Republican-backed Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. The first Con itself isn't very convincing when you understand how academic publications work. I'm doing a PhD in Statistics and although my research relies on fundamental theorems in statistical theory, I don't state them explicitly because it's not a good use of space when I can safely assume that my audience knows what I'm talking about. Just because only a small percentage of published articles in climate science explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of global warming doesn't mean that those other papers aren't motivated by that statement being true. It's why surveys of actual climate scientists are more reliable, and it's those surveys which consistently report 95+% of climate scientists believing in anthropogenic climate change. I could probably go through the other Cons and dispute them if I had more formal training in climate science, but I don't.

I'd recommend you check out the documentary Merchants of Doubt, though. It's a really good deconstruction of climate denial.

Perhaps I will at some point, though I'm not trusting of much on the side of human-made climate change. Mainly because the scientists researching this stuff and coming to the conclusions have their jobs secured by such conclusions. Governments want scientists to say that people are making a massive impact on climate change to please the G20 summit and to allow big industry to thrive selling clean energy and clean energy accessories. Money makes the world go round, and there will always be money to be made investing in clean energy as long as the fear is hyped up. Call me a conspiracy nut if you wish, but humans are not trustworthy creatures in my opinion and are too easily bought.

Also, even if people are making an impact, the global climate changes on its own anyway, so holding industry back isn't necessary. Stopping pollution - sure - but to stop climate change, I'm dubious.

Find more, then. I basically found one and skim-read it. If I want to find a good one that'd take more time, and it seems as though you're set in stone in your beliefs anyway. If I come across a good one I'll send it.

Im a very dedicated nature lover and admit i see more problems with deforesting than industrial pollution. If we had enough forests (cut down for crop fields for liberal vegetarians) theyd swallow huge deal of any pollution

I wasn't talking about pollution - I was talking about climate change. Pollution is bad for people if it's concentrated heavily in one area (like in China's cities), but not for the planet as a whole in regards to climate change.

"climate scientists" as with many scientists will openly agree with popular opinion otherwise they get no funding and rep.

just because a scientist says something doesn't mean you can't question it. They aren't supposed to be followed blindly. Use your own observations with everything. The "facts" keep changing and the media machine keeps lying.

There are climate scientists who agree and disagree with the position I hold. I choose what seems to be the most logical conclusion. The history behind Northern European agriculture is excellent evidence towards the view that climate change isn't affected on a large enough scale by humans for us to worry about it. Blindly following what one group of scientists says isn't the best way to come to a conclusion to this issue - evidence from many sources is much better.

Also, since some scientists believe that climate change isn't being affected by human activity (to a noteable scale, at least), how is it that you know better than actual scientists about this stuff? Blindly appealing to authority is stupid.

Climate scientists who hold the view that humans are not contributing to global warming are a fringe minority and usually funded by the petroleum industry (see Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012). This has been demonstrated time and time again with surveys of climate scientists.

Appealing to the majority doesn't make a good argument in itself. And why wouldn't the petroleum industry fund these scientists? If they stand on the side that says humans don't affect climate change, and the petroleum industry agreed, it seems to be a perfect match. There are many scientists who say humans do affect climate change that are funded by clean energy companies and governments interested in making money via said energy.

- Just because a minority believes in something does not mean they are wrong.
- Funding from certain companies doesn't mean the scientists have been bribed.

While what you said is true, the problem is that people who hold your position are almost exclusively funded by petroleum companies or right-wing interest groups. Climate scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change are the vast majority in every other organisation, partisan or not, publicly funded or not. Your position is distinctly partisan. Mine isn't. They're not equivalent.

But as I've stated, it's only natural that people who supply petroleum would endorse the scientists who agree with them. It's a mistake to look at which groups of people support an argument rather at looking at the argument itself. There's a lot of evidence supporting my position - the climate of the Earth changes a lot over thousands of years, and has been doing so far before human industrialisation. It seems illogical to blame human-caused carbon emissions for what has been happening for so many thousands of years.

This talks about carbon emissions but not of climate change. As I've said - Mediaeval England grew grapes; Bronze-Age farmers grew crops on the hills of Sheffield. These things cannot be done today as the climate has changed since then (before human industrialisation). The climate of the Earth naturally changes so blaming it on humans doesn't make sense.

There's more, of course. At this point there's really no way to pick out one side that's definitely correct, so I side with what seems the most logical one. Most people take for granted that humans are the main cause of climate change, so they won't look at opposing evidence. I oppose that view when I can.

Interesting, but not very convincing. Especially when the first source for the first Con argument comes from Marc Morano, who has no background in climate science and whose organisation Climate Depot is funded by the right-wing Republican-backed Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. The first Con itself isn't very convincing when you understand how academic publications work. I'm doing a PhD in Statistics and although my research relies on fundamental theorems in statistical theory, I don't state them explicitly because it's not a good use of space when I can safely assume that my audience knows what I'm talking about. Just because only a small percentage of published articles in climate science explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of global warming doesn't mean that those other papers aren't motivated by that statement being true. It's why surveys of actual climate scientists are more reliable, and it's those surveys which consistently report 95+% of climate scientists believing in anthropogenic climate change. I could probably go through the other Cons and dispute them if I had more formal training in climate science, but I don't.

I'd recommend you check out the documentary Merchants of Doubt, though. It's a really good deconstruction of climate denial.

Perhaps I will at some point, though I'm not trusting of much on the side of human-made climate change. Mainly because the scientists researching this stuff and coming to the conclusions have their jobs secured by such conclusions. Governments want scientists to say that people are making a massive impact on climate change to please the G20 summit and to allow big industry to thrive selling clean energy and clean energy accessories. Money makes the world go round, and there will always be money to be made investing in clean energy as long as the fear is hyped up. Call me a conspiracy nut if you wish, but humans are not trustworthy creatures in my opinion and are too easily bought.

Also, even if people are making an impact, the global climate changes on its own anyway, so holding industry back isn't necessary. Stopping pollution - sure - but to stop climate change, I'm dubious.

Find more, then. I basically found one and skim-read it. If I want to find a good one that'd take more time, and it seems as though you're set in stone in your beliefs anyway. If I come across a good one I'll send it.

Which is why environmental regulations are harming American industry. It's impossible to compete with the Chinese when their operating costs are so low because they don't comply with the same standards.

As if it's the environmental regulations and not the fact that the Chinese build slave towers with safety nets to catch suicidal "workers" and force them back into the production line.

Or safety regulations that have mitigated most industrial disaster in Western countries but just two years ago improperly stored and handled ammonium nitrate (key component in fertiliser) blew up part of a dockside area and killed over 170 people that we know of.
And it's only the most striking example I can think of in recent times.

Or the stock market that crashes more than a heavily epileptic child on a unicycle and is propped up by their government burning through their reserves like a horny Soviet commissar in Berlin 1945 and building entire cities worth of unused property just to keep that aspect of their economy alive.

They do. There was a big report on it on NPR I listened to where they've already dropped their shit air percentage by close to half of what it used to because of all of the climate safe shit they're using.

Granted, it's still above a 'Healthy' limit, but it's way better than it used to be.

Fucking loved that book when I was a kid.
The illustrations were so good, and the bizarre nature of each creature had me in fucking stitches way back when.
Dunno why, but Coddleflops were always my favourite.
Just lookit the lil' green bastards.
So cute. Maybe not cute, but you get what I mean.

Rob Steen is an amazing illustrator. If you liked the flanimals, you should look up his other work - it's pretty perculiar, and absolutely brilliant.

It was great to read it as a kid. It was different, since it was about little creatures and the futility of their lives, rather than some happy, fluffy story or something. The humour was spot-on, too. I always enjoyed Glonks. Fantastic critter, there.

It wasn't to spite the British. Napoleon changed it in all the countries he conquered because he was left handed and a megalomaniac. He didn't give a fuck a out the 90% of the right handed population, asong as he could fend off attackers more comfortably.